View Single Post
Re: HELP! 5' or 7' Westcott Octabank? Studio pros check in!
Old 03-25-2006, 11:30 AM   #4 (permalink)
ChipBulgin
Evangelical Ne'er-do-well

 
ChipBulgin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Member GG#: 42306
Location: Severna Park, MD
Posts: 491
Comments: 0
Send a message via Yahoo to ChipBulgin

ChipBulgin is offline IP: 68.49.128.240
  Reply With Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyLeeMR2
I love the lighting these produce but I don't quite understand one thing....
on the B&H site it says to use the 7' for full body shots and the 5' one for 3/4 length shots.... is that true? Does that mean that the 7' one will not perform optimally if I want to do waist up shots?
The bigger the light source the softer the light, the more wrap-around effect, and the more evenly illuminated it's going to be. The 7 footer will perform admirably for anything from head shots to full length. You have to back the 5 footer up a couple of feet in order to get even illumination for a full length shot. This makes the 5 footer a smaller light source and therefore more contrasty. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on the look you want. Contrast is good for color saturation and texture.

If all you're ever going to do is head shots and/or parts work (like shoes, watches, jewelry, etc.) then the 7' is overkill. You can achive the exact same results with a smaller modifier because it easily covers the area you're working with. It doesn't make sense from a cost or space standpoint to use a big modifier to shoot small subjects. But if you're going to shoot full length, groups, or larger subjects in general a single, larger modifier is much easier to control than multiple, smaller modifiers.

-Chip
__________________
People who do stupid things with dangerous substances often die! -me
  View Public Profile Send a private message to ChipBulgin Find More Posts by ChipBulgin